Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[3 Resurrections]

The Earthquake was around AD 60. This means that Revelation was not written in the early 60s but the late 50s. Those who believe it was written in the 60s give a date of 68-69 AD for Revelation being written. This would put it years after the earthquake at Laodicea. This would make it seem that God is rebuking the church at Laodicea for becoming full of itself during the 30 year rebuild, where no outside help was requested.

I am not one of those who date Revelation to 68-69. You are right that it would be ridiculous for God to rebuke the Laodicean church for its pride in being full of itself during its rebuilding period. (I have brought this point up before to Dr. Gentry on his website, since he dates Revelation to the mid-60's.) This is why I am saying that Revelation was penned just prior to AD 60. Somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the earthquake event struck Laodicea. This was the impending judgment of "spewing thee out of my mouth" that God was going to perform on the Laodicean assembly.

That is more conjecture than should be allowed. First of all Laodicea isn't under water, so it doesn't fit "divers places".

LOL Thanks for a good laugh this morning. That was a good one. I'll have to remember that.

Also, why would John ask them to repent to avoid God's judgement, several years AFTER said judgement? That makes no sense. You warn before the judgement.

Exactly, that is the point I'm making about the Laodicean earthquake judgment, with God warning the Laodicean church through John's words given in Revelation just before that disastrous event in AD 60.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It matters if you are trying to develop a timeline. Are you a dispensationalist they have a need ?

I've already told you I am not a dispensationalist in the sense you are probably thinking of. I am a Preterist, and enjoy reading historical records that match up with the time-relevant language in the NT that spoke of what time those events would take place. It all gives added confirmation that we serve a predestinating God that "orders all things after the counsel of His own will". He fulfills His promises to the letter, and in the time He pre-determined for them to occur.

If you want to concentrate on the subject of the millennium of Revelation 20, there are other posts already established on that theme or you could start another.

 

[Mr GLee]

time-relevant language

Did you mean prophecy? We know that end of ages is speaking of the end of time the last day. They began when Jesus said it is finished

John 6:39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 6:40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

same time in the twinkling of the eye as the judgement at the end of time (ages)

John 12:48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Did you mean prophecy?

When I write "time-relevant language", I am referring to terms such as prophecies which were said to be "at hand" meaning presently in the process of being fulfilled. Or prophecies which were "about to be" performed soon in the time frame in which they were written. Or prophecies which would be performed "shortly" or "quickly" or would only last for a "short time" or a "little season". Or terms that describe a then-current situation going on that "IS" happening. Or language that refers to events in which something "WAS" in place in the past.

The verb tenses and the time-relevant terms in the original languages are frequently ignored when people read Revelation.

same time in the twinkling of the eye as the judgement at the end of time (ages)

The phrase "end of time" is never found in scripture at all. And those "ends of the ages" had already come upon the believers in the first century.

 

[Mr GLee]

When I write "time-relevant language", I am referring to terms such as prophecies which were said to be "at hand" meaning presently in the process of being fulfilled. Or prophecies which were "about to be" performed soon in the time frame in which they were written. Or prophecies which would be performed "shortly" or "quickly" or would only last for a "short time" or a "little season". Or terms that describe a then-current situation going on that "IS" happening. Or language that refers to events in which something "WAS" in place in the past.

I understanding prophecy as before, present, and future.

If you are referring to some earthquake no name mentioned or how great . The Laodicea earthquake destroyed the city it has nothing to do with the gospel , The earthquake in Mathew opened the graves or signified the opening of graves.

Matthew 27:51-53King James Version51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

​

 

[TMSO]

Not all prophecy is related to future events. And in Revelation 1:19, John was told to "write the things which thou HAST SEEN" (past events from John's perspective), "and the things that ARE" (things presently occurring in John's days), "and the things which are ABOUT TO BE hereafter" (things soon to occur in John's days).

Just what is prophecy? In today's terms, prophecy is when the preacher (prophet) uncovers and rails against sin. Not, I guess this sin is present, but they actually uncover sin (by God's Holy Spirit) and rail against it. Like Paul dealing with immorality in the church. I have been told that there is someone who has taken his father's wife. The prophet is the one who declares sin, and rails against it, and even the person involved. So you are correct. Not all prophecy is related to future events. However, your usage of Revelation 1:19 is faulty.
"19 `Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;

20 the secret of the seven stars that thou hast seen upon my right hand, and the seven golden lamp-stands: the seven stars are messengers of the seven assemblies, and the seven lamp-stands that thou hast seen are seven assemblies." (YLT)

John is being told to record everything. What he has already seen, what he is seeing, and what he sees after what he is seeing. Nowhere does it say (things soon to occur in John's days.) You added that to Revelation in contravention of John's warning. Do not add to the book. You will notice that I stopped at a plain reading of what is written. Normally, I would not explain what it says, I would just say what it says. However, if you neglect the context within which the verse appears, I find I need to remind. It is to the point where John is told when not to write things.

Of course, that was Christ's promise to all believers of all time. "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." It's a universal reality for all those living in the world but who are not of the world. But we are speaking of the particular persecution episode that John was then presently enduring along with the saints. You would like to claim it was under Domitian, but the rest of the scripture context in Revelation narrows that period of persecution John was experiencing down to an earlier period than Domitian's time.

You still haven't proven that it has to be a particular persecution episode. For instance, tradition is that it was in Domitian's day. Later, they added Nero. The dates noted are 94 AD for exile by Domitian, or around 64 AD for Nero with 67-68 AD as the dates for the Revelation. (Which, consequently, sinks your Laodicea theory. That would also remove the reason for John writing in the first place, given your theory.) However, having recently read all of Revelation, I didn't notice any evidence that you say is found there. In fact, I don't remember finding anything that ties it down to ANY particular period of persecution, but just a period of tribulation, of which there were a number during the first and second centuries (and beyond). For Laodicea, and even Smyrna, a later date makes sense. Laodicea, being full of itself after completing the recovery from the earthquake, and Smyrna, for having a Bishop to write to in Polycarp. Polycarp became the Bishop of Smyrna in either the late (very) 90's AD or very (very) early 100 AD. We can know it was early 100 AD because someone who was martyred prior to 105AD (I believe) had stopped in Smyrna and had spoken with Polycarp as an established Bishop of Smyrna in 104AD.

Of course, dating the death of Antipas is going to be an assumption by all, including you, since we do not have a record of it in history anywhere. That is why I wrote "probably" and not "certainly" about the timing of Antipas's death. The only fact we can be certain of is that it was in the days prior to John writing Revelation.

As someone who studied history, I side with tradition that goes back to the beginning. Reign of Domitian was first, Nero came later. The reason why I choose earlier tradition first is that any dissenters would have corrected the record early. You would think that the people in Pergamum would know, and would keep the record straight. However, the original record is for Domitian. Just like for John seeing the revelation. With my history side, taught by a teacher who stated that personal opinion and conjecture are meaningless in history, the weight afforded to Irenaeus and Eusebius is considerable. The weight afforded to conjecture is substantially less, and I would say substantially less than zero. The fact that tradition, outside of Irenaeus and Eusebius states Domitian is boosted by the historical value of Irenaeus and Eusebius.

I do, because they were co-laborers together in the ministry for some time.

Yes, that defection from faithfulness (an "apostasia") did eventually include Smyrna and Philadelphia. These once-faithful assemblies also experienced a lapse in that faithfulness, according to Paul's testimony to Timothy before Paul's martyrdom around AD 67. That kingdom of Asia where Satan had his throne in Pergamos and concentrated his deceptive efforts in that region became "darkened", just as Paul witnessed and told Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:15. This tells us that the book of 2 Timothy (written around AD 67) was written AFTER Revelation which was penned at a time when there were still two assemblies which were remaining faithful.

Wait. Satan had no throne after 33AD, right? if we go by your belief that Satan was defeated in 33 AD. There would be no Satan to concentrate his deceptive efforts, right? Do you have a consolidated view of history? You have verse in the New Testament that talk about the devil and his activities, however you claim there is no devil after 33 AD, when the millennium ended. We are perfectly capable of sinning without him, I believe was your reasoning. For your Laodicea theory, the Revelation would have to be in 60AD or earlier, to ensure that the church at Laodicea received the letter within a reasonable amount of time before the earthquake. How do you excuse the fact that no one who wrote the New Testament took the time to mention that Jesus prophecy of the disciples had been fulfilled by John? Why does Peter only mention Paul as the source of his end times words, if John's Revelation had been available for 7 or 8 years? Considering all the churches in Asia would have heard from John around 60AD, you would think that Paul and Peter would have known. And what about Luke? Wouldn't this deserve a place in the book of the Acts of the Apostles? Wouldn't Paul have educated himself from Revelation before writing of the end times? What about Peter, again. He wrote II Peter as late as 68AD. He already knew he was going to die, so since they believe he was martyred in 68AD, that would be about right. I think the absence of evidence speaks louder then conjecture at this point.

You haven't read far enough yet in the internal evidence for an early date if you think it all hinges on John and Antipas being persecuted by Nero. And tradition has often been discovered to be mistaken, so it is best not to use that for solid proof of anything. I mention it sometimes, but my beliefs are not founded on it.

Consider this about John. Irenaeus said that to know if the man was important, then ask the man who saw the revelation. Why does it matter to Irenaeus. Because the revelation that was seen by John had been almost within Irenaeus lifetime. (About 20-30 years before Irenaeus was born). There would be enough people alive to know if John had ever mentioned who the person was, as if there was any importance to the times. (Such as, the man was alive during John's time.) As it stands, John left the code behind only, with no name. So apparently, the name was not important. In which case, one can/would assume that this person may not yet be alive, but "is to come". Or the person is just completely unimportant, which we know is not the case. He has a whole narrative.

 

[TMSO]

I am not one of those who date Revelation to 68-69. You are right that it would be ridiculous for God to rebuke the Laodicean church for its pride in being full of itself during its rebuilding period. (I have brought this point up before to Dr. Gentry on his website, since he dates Revelation to the mid-60's.) This is why I am saying that Revelation was penned just prior to AD 60. Somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the earthquake event struck Laodicea. This was the impending judgment of "spewing thee out of my mouth" that God was going to perform on the Laodicean assembly.

Your own evidence puts Revelation in the mid to late 60s. The syriac bible you spoke of. It is funny. I saw someone mention it as second century historical. However, the only copies ever found of that and several other books, are from the seventh century, so no historical tradition.

LOL Thanks for a good laugh this morning. That was a good one. I'll have to remember that.

I applaud your sense of humor. Some people wouldn't get it, or believe I was insulting them. It's nice for once to have someone recognize a play on words as just that.

Exactly, that is the point I'm making about the Laodicean earthquake judgment, with God warning the Laodicean church through John's words given in Revelation just before that disastrous event in AD 60.

You need to work better on your consistency. Antipas was martyred as early as 62 AD. You require Antipas to be dead around 56-58 AD. You should reconcile your beliefs with scripture. John talks about Satan's throne, however you state that Satan ceased to be an issue in 33AD, with the end of the millennium. So who is deceiving in the passages, since the passages say it is Satan, but you say Satan was removed in 33AD? Even though Satan was bound from deceiving, you have Satan attempting to deceive Jesus in the wilderness. You have Jesus saying to Peter, Get behind me Satan. You have Jesus telling Peter that Satan had asked to sift Peter's faith like wheat, and apparently yes being the answer. Go ahead. However, if Satan had been tossed out of heave before the millennium, then how did Satan ask? I mean, Job tells us how Satan requests things. He goes before the presence of God along with the sons of God (angels). He then asks, and God answers. If Satan is barred from heaven and from the face of God, then... who did he ask?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Consider this about John. Irenaeus said that to know if the man was important, then ask the man who saw the revelation. Why does it matter to Irenaeus. Because the revelation that was seen by John had been almost within Irenaeus lifetime. (About 20-30 years before Irenaeus was born). There would be enough people alive to know if John had ever mentioned who the person was, as if there was any importance to the times. (Such as, the man was alive during John's time.) As it stands, John left the code behind only, with no name. So apparently, the name was not important. In which case, one can/would assume that this person may not yet be alive, but "is to come". Or the person is just completely unimportant, which we know is not the case. He has a whole narrative.

John in writing Revelation already gave enough evidence about the Sea Beast's identity for the saints to count backward in time and find the man who began the existence of that Sea Beast. It was Nebuchadnezzar who was the head of the Babylonian "lion" kingdom, which passed to the "bear" kingdom (Medo-Persia), then to the "leopard" kingdom (Greece), and finally to the Roman empire which was the last phase of the Sea Beast's existence in John's days. All of those features were included in the Sea Beast's identity in Rev. 13:2.

That 666 number was a total of six-hundred and sixty-six years of pagan empires controlling the nation of Israel, up until the time John was writing Revelation in AD 59/60. John didn't need to give the name of this man because every one at all familiar with Jewish history knew of Nebuchadnezzar's various deportations of the Jews and his destruction of Jerusalem and its temple at the beginning of the Sea Beast's biography. Irenaeus was just one of those who didn't understand that connection.

Your own evidence puts Revelation in the mid to late 60s.

No, the combination of evidences I am putting forward all narrow the date down to that very precise late AD 59 to early AD 60 composition date. Some of them posit a "no earlier than a particular year", and some posit a "no later than a particular year". But none of these pieces of internal evidence stand in contradiction with each other.

Antipas was martyred as early as 62 AD.

Neither you nor I can say with certainty what the year of Antipas's death was. This is a statement with only an assumption behind it. The only thing we are told is that it was prior to John writing Revelation. Which is consistent with the points I am making about an early date.

You should reconcile your beliefs with scripture. John talks about Satan's throne, however you state that Satan ceased to be an issue in 33AD, with the end of the millennium. So who is deceiving in the passages, since the passages say it is Satan, but you say Satan was removed in 33AD? Even though Satan was bound from deceiving, you have Satan attempting to deceive Jesus in the wilderness.

No, I never said that Satan "ceased to be an issue in 33 AD with the end of the millennium". I wrote that Satan was removed from heaven and cast down to earth with his angels at that time, to once again deceive the nations for a "short time" after AD 33 at the millennium's ending. Satan lost his ability to accuse the brethren in heaven in AD 33. However, this only angered him all the more in trying to deceive men on earth in that brief period after AD 33 when he was once again allowed to deceive the nations. He knew he only had a "short time" left, and he was in full battle mode for the brief time he had remaining until AD 70.

The conditions of the millennium when Satan's deception of the nations was bound did not mean he was not attempting to do this. It only meant Satan would not succeed in his deceptive efforts. Christ did not succumb to this temptation, which only proves that Satan himself did not have the ability to deceive anyone until that millennium expired - in AD 33.

And Satan never asked anyone if he could deceive Peter. Christ only told Peter that "Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not...". Wanting or desiring something is not the same as succeeding at getting it.

 

[TMSO]

John in writing Revelation already gave enough evidence about the Sea Beast's identity for the saints to count backward in time and find the man who began the existence of that Sea Beast. It was Nebuchadnezzar who was the head of the Babylonian "lion" kingdom, which passed to the "bear" kingdom (Medo-Persia), then to the "leopard" kingdom (Greece), and finally to the Roman empire which was the last phase of the Sea Beast's existence in John's days. All of those features were included in the Sea Beast's identity in Rev. 13:2.

I see that you missed the whole point here. This beast is an amalgamation of the four beasts from Daniel's prophecies that stood against God. This speaks to just how great a threat this beast will be. You are adding so much to Revelation it is no longer recongnizable. Again, consider John's curse.

That 666 number was a total of six-hundred and sixty-six years of pagan empires controlling the nation of Israel, up until the time John was writing Revelation in AD 59/60. John didn't need to give the name of this man because every one at all familiar with Jewish history knew of Nebuchadnezzar's various deportations of the Jews and his destruction of Jerusalem and its temple at the beginning of the Sea Beast's biography. Irenaeus was just one of those who didn't understand that connection.

I take it you didn't read Irenaeus, who actually explained what the 666 was, right? It is the amalgamation of 600, 60, and 6. Three numbers with three meanings.

"since he sums up in his own person all the commixture of wickedness which took place previous to the deluge, due to the apostasy of the angels. For Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge came upon the earth, sweeping away the rebellious world, for the sake of that most infamous generation which lived in the times of Noah. And [Antichrist] also sums up every error of devised idols since the flood, together with the slaying of the prophets and the cutting off of the just {cf. Matt 24:37–38/Luke 17:26–27}. For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end {cf. Matt 24:15/Mark 13:14}. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men {cf. Rev 13:15}. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace, do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things’ sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth]. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.29.2)"

He understood the connection, but he also knew that John was giving prophecy, which is what John says in the very first chapter. There is someone coming who will be an amalgamation of all of this, who will top these people from the past.

No, the combination of evidences I am putting forward all narrow the date down to that very precise late AD 59 to early AD 60 composition date. Some of them posit a "no earlier than a particular year", and some posit a "no later than a particular year". But none of these pieces of internal evidence stand in contradiction with each other.

It is possible that Smyrna had not yet been evangelized at this time. For instance, some say it was the third missionary journey, but Smyrna is not mentioned. And that journey ended in 57AD.

Neither you nor I can say with certainty what the year of Antipas's death was. This is a statement with only an assumption behind it. The only thing we are told is that it was prior to John writing Revelation. Which is consistent with the points I am making about an early date.

Except it wasn't an early date, so Antipas died later. (You have an awful lot of conjecture.) I am going to say this for you to consider. Have you ever noticed that the offspring of false teachers tend to be worse than they are. They go further, push deeper, to the point that the original false teacher has to do something about it. It still happens today. Servus Christi went further than Muriel ever did, and it came back to haunt him.

No, I never said that Satan "ceased to be an issue in 33 AD with the end of the millennium". I wrote that Satan was removed from heaven and cast down to earth with his angels at that time, to once again deceive the nations for a "short time" after AD 33 at the millennium's ending. Satan lost his ability to accuse the brethren in heaven in AD 33. However, this only angered him all the more in trying to deceive men on earth in that brief period after AD 33 when he was once again allowed to deceive the nations. He knew he only had a "short time" left, and he was in full battle mode for the brief time he had remaining until AD 70.

Then you have some rather foreign understanding of the millennium. Revelation is clear that when the millennium ends, Satan is the first to be thrown into the lake of fire. Death and hades are the last. And I mean for this period in Revelation 20. The beast his image and the prophet and those people were thrown into the lake of fire before the millennium. (Thus Nebuchadnezzar was thrown into the lake of fire before he ever became king, thus throwing the whole universe into utter turmoil.)

The conditions of the millennium when Satan's deception of the nations was bound did not mean he was not attempting to do this. It only meant Satan would not succeed in his deceptive efforts. Christ did not succumb to this temptation, which only proves that Satan himself did not have the ability to deceive anyone until that millennium expired - in AD 33.

This is the problem I have with people who decide to use eisegesis instead of exogesis. 1. He was bound in a heavy chain. 2. He was thrown into the bottomless pit. 3. He was SEALED. The Bible is making it clear that his condition is absolute. He is in the pit, and he is staying in the pit until the angel comes back down and releases him. Everything you are saying is from outside the book, and you are adding it.

And Satan never asked anyone if he could deceive Peter. Christ only told Peter that "Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not...". Wanting or desiring something is not the same as succeeding at getting it.

"And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat." (NKJV)
"“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;" (NASB 1995)
"And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, lo, the Adversary did ask you for himself to sift as the wheat," (Young's Literal Translation)

ἐξῃτήσατο
(exētēsato) To demand 1809: to ask for oneself (mid.), demand from ek and aiteó
As you can see, Satan asked/demanded this. It looks like the KJV is the ONLY version to not properly translate the word. And from what I have found, it is the same word in the King James version, except instead of translating it as demand/ask, then translated it as desire.

I also looked forward, and it shows the definition is demand/ask, but they used it as desire. Go figure. Granted, when they wrote the King James version of the Bible they changed quite a few things.

 

[Mr GLee]

That 666 number was a total of six-hundred and sixty-six years of pagan empires controlling the nation of Israel, up until the time John was writing Revelation in AD 59/60. John didn't need to give the name of this man because every one at all familiar with Jewish history knew of Nebuchadnezzar's various deportations of the Jews and his destruction of Jerusalem and its temple at the beginning of the Sea Beast's biography. Irenaeus was just one of those who didn't understand that connection.

A "mark" not a sign. . not literally seen but a spiritual matter , by faith, the unseen workings of God .Its a evil generation (666) that hopes for a sin seen . Rather than trusting prophecy.

The atheist sign seeking Jew made Jesus into a circus seal . . work your magic create a miracle and then when we see it with out own eyes then we will ,believe.not one second sooner.

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

666 is the number of unconverted mankind the mark spoke of in Genesis 4. The mark of His word or the law of faith "let there be" and God was good. He alone is good. He promised if any murdered Cain the restless wanderer not yoked with Christ as was Abel the same mark will be applied to the murderers .

Cain seduced by the father of lies. . . a murderer from that beginning he tried to bargain for early out the death sentence . Satan hates all flesh .the original Kill them all Off with their heads Queen LOL

Genesis 4:13-15 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

In effect saying . . Mark my Living word what I say will come to pass. The father of lies the murderer continues to deceive 666.

 

[Mr GLee]

This is the problem I have with people who decide to use eisegesis instead of exogesis. 1. He was bound in a heavy chain. 2. He was thrown into the bottomless pit. 3. He was SEALED. The Bible is making it clear that his condition is absolute. He is in the pit, and he is staying in the pit until the angel comes back down and releases him. Everything you are saying is from outside the book, and you are adding it.

I would ask in that parable the signified understanding spoken of in Revelation 1:1 does that mean a literal chain can hold the spirit of lies or a literally bottomless pit, literal seal? Or more like a temporary restraining order?

And how and when did he deceive every nation (the reason for the fall) again having do with "all the nations" a one time past event .Not sin in general he continues to accuse the brethren day and night 24/7/365

 

[3 Resurrections]

It is possible that Smyrna had not yet been evangelized at this time. For instance, some say it was the third missionary journey, but Smyrna is not mentioned. And that journey ended in 57AD.

Smyrna is also included in "all they which dwelt in Asia", both Jews and Greeks , who heard the word of the Lord via Paul's 2 years of evangelistic work (Acts 19:10). This was just before the Ephesian riot in AD 57, mentioned in Acts 19:23-41. So it is not possible that Smyrna was not evangelized by AD 57, since all those living in Asia at the time were exposed to the effects of Paul's evangelism in one way or another.

In Revelation 2:8-10 when Christ was addressing the assembly of Smyrna, the believers were told that Satan was "about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation for ten days". The Smyrna believers were told not to fear any of the things they were soon "about to suffer". If all the other internal evidence of Revelation points to an AD 59/60 composition date, this symbolic "10 days" of persecution for Smyrna (as a probably fallout effect of the Ephesian riot in AD 57) fits very well into the 10-year period between AD 60 and AD 70 when God was allowing the saints to have war made against them. If the Smyrna believers were faithful unto death during those symbolic "10 days" from AD 60 to AD 70, they would be given a "crown of life" in a bodily resurrection, which took place in AD 70.

Except it wasn't an early date, so Antipas died later. (You have an awful lot of conjecture.)

But you yourself are assuming those two things, that Revelation was not written early, and that Antipas died later. This is conjecture on your part. What I'm trying to do in this post is to bring up the concrete evidence of Revelation and scripture's internal witness which points to an early date composition. The other things (such as Antipas's unknown date of death) are not conclusive in and of themselves, so neither you nor I can use the death of Antipas for proof of our position.

I see that you missed the whole point here. This beast is an amalgamation of the four beasts from Daniel's prophecies that stood against God.

You must be confused on what I wrote. My point absolutely was in agreement that the Sea Beast is an amalgamation of Daniel's beasts. The "dreadful and terrible" fourth beast of Daniel 7:7 IS the Rev. 13 Sea Beast which had lasted for 666 years until its final Roman phase of existence when Revelation was being written. ALL of the power behind those former pagan kingdoms became subsumed into the final Roman phase of the Sea Beast which had ALL the features of those former pagan empires in its description (Rev. 13:2). The same demonic realm was operating behind the scenes of ALL those former pagan empires, trying to disrupt God's redemptive plans for the nations. Without success, since God's plan prevailed.

It was not this Sea Beast which was thrown into Jerusalem's Lake of Fire. It was the other Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17 along with the Rev. 13 False Prophet / Land Beast which were thrown alive into that environment. They shared that fate with Satan and his devils, for whom that furnace of fire had been prepared.

 

[TMSO]

A "mark" not a sign. . not literally seen but a spiritual matter , by faith, the unseen workings of God .Its a evil generation (666) that hopes for a sin seen . Rather than trusting prophecy.

The atheist sign seeking Jew made Jesus into a circus seal . . work your magic create a miracle and then when we see it with out own eyes then we will ,believe.not one second sooner.

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

666 is the number of unconverted mankind the mark spoke of in Genesis 4. The mark of His word or the law of faith "let there be" and God was good. He alone is good. He promised if any murdered Cain the restless wanderer not yoked with Christ as was Abel the same mark will be applied to the murderers .

Cain seduced by the father of lies. . . a murderer from that beginning he tried to bargain for early out the death sentence . Satan hates all flesh .the original Kill them all Off with their heads Queen LOL

Genesis 4:13-15 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

In effect saying . . Mark my Living word what I say will come to pass. The father of lies the murderer continues to deceive 666.

The Holy Spirit is a mark of spiritual matter, however this mark will be physical as a complete opposite of the work of the Holy Spirit.

As for 666, if you look it up from Irenaeus, it is the 600 years of age Noah was when he entered the ark, and Nebuchadnezzars statue which was 60 cubits tall, and 6 cubits wide.

 

[TMSO]

Smyrna is also included in "all they which dwelt in Asia", both Jews and Greeks , who heard the word of the Lord via Paul's 2 years of evangelistic work (Acts 19:10). This was just before the Ephesian riot in AD 57, mentioned in Acts 19:23-41. So it is not possible that Smyrna was not evangelized by AD 57, since all those living in Asia at the time were exposed to the effects of Paul's evangelism in one way or another.

Evangelized, and having a fully established church are two different things. Also, I am going off of what Polycarp had written about the evangelizing of Asia.

In Revelation 2:8-10 when Christ was addressing the assembly of Smyrna, the believers were told that Satan was "about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation for ten days". The Smyrna believers were told not to fear any of the things they were soon "about to suffer". If all the other internal evidence of Revelation points to an AD 59/60 composition date, this symbolic "10 days" of persecution for Smyrna (as a probably fallout effect of the Ephesian riot in AD 57) fits very well into the 10-year period between AD 60 and AD 70 when God was allowing the saints to have war made against them. If the Smyrna believers were faithful unto death during those symbolic "10 days" from AD 60 to AD 70, they would be given a "crown of life" in a bodily resurrection, which took place in AD 70.

Yet Satan was already in the lake of fire. How can Satan do anything from there? That is the second death. That means Satan is dead and gone. Can your provide any support for a resurrection in AD 70. I'm going to tell you a secret. The reason why preterists are called heretics is because they teach that Jesus is never going to physically return, which was the cornerstone of the gospel message. Jesus is going to return. He promised the disciples that He would come back (second coming) in the same way He left, through a young man who was with Him. (Angel)

But you yourself are assuming those two things, that Revelation was not written early, and that Antipas died later. This is conjecture on your part. What I'm trying to do in this post is to bring up the concrete evidence of Revelation and scripture's internal witness which points to an early date composition. The other things (such as Antipas's unknown date of death) are not conclusive in and of themselves, so neither you nor I can use the death of Antipas for proof of our position.

Except that tradition is on my side. You are against all tradition in putting Antipas death before 62 AD, especially since the origina tradition, going back to people who knew, is that it was 92 AD, and John exiled in 94 AD, and released by the Senate in 96-97AD.

You must be confused on what I wrote. My point absolutely was in agreement that the Sea Beast is an amalgamation of Daniel's beasts. The "dreadful and terrible" fourth beast of Daniel 7:7 IS the Rev. 13 Sea Beast which had lasted for 666 years until its final Roman phase of existence when Revelation was being written. ALL of the power behind those former pagan kingdoms became subsumed into the final Roman phase of the Sea Beast which had ALL the features of those former pagan empires in its description (Rev. 13:2). The same demonic realm was operating behind the scenes of ALL those former pagan empires, trying to disrupt God's redemptive plans for the nations. Without success, since God's plan prevailed.

Nothing about 666 years. NOTHING. Again the 600 is the age of Noah when he entered the ark, 60 is the height of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, and 6 is the width. (cubits for the last 2) The thing is that this beast that is the amalgamation of all four which includes Rome, (so it comes after Rome), is that this beast stands dead set against God, and makes itself out to be God. And the hallmark is a last horn that appears to receive a mortal wound, but is raised again. That is the antichrist. As I had been told so long ago, the antichrist will appear to die, and Satan will appear to resurrect him. Satan will really put the anti in anti-christ.

It was not this Sea Beast which was thrown into Jerusalem's Lake of Fire. It was the other Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17 along with the Rev. 13 False Prophet / Land Beast which were thrown alive into that environment. They shared that fate with Satan and his devils, for whom that furnace of fire had been prepared.

What are you talking about Jerusalem's lake of fire? And no, the only two thrown into the lake of fire burning with brimstone was the land beast and the prophet that caused people to worship the image of this beast. The only two. (Revelation is actually specific in that it says only these two.) This is the only time that it is mentioned as the lake of fire burning with brimstone. The one Satan is thrown in is just the lake of fire.

 

[3 Resurrections]

As for 666, if you look it up from Irenaeus, it is the 600 years of age Noah was when he entered the ark, and Nebuchadnezzars statue which was 60 cubits tall, and 6 cubits wide.

Irenaeus was confused about a lot of things. He mistook the Sea Beast for the Antichrist when that Antichrist title never appears in the book of Revelation at all. He got Christ's age at His crucifixion wrong by saying He was almost 50. He didn't even know which John wrote Revelation. And he got the meaning of the 666 number wrong. The same kind of flawed reasoning could be applied to Solomon, since he had 666 talents of gold coming to him every year from other nations in 2 Chron. 9:13. That doesn't make Solomon the Sea Beast character.

Nothing about 666 years. NOTHING. Again the 600 is the age of Noah when he entered the ark, 60 is the height of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, and 6 is the width. (cubits for the last 2)

The Greek word for the instruction to "calculate" the number of the Sea Beast is "psephisato", which carries the meaning of using pebbles to add up a total number of something. There is nothing in Revelation telling us to consider those three disparate items in scripture as having anything to do with each other. That was simply random speculation on Irenaeus's part and yours also if you follow him.

Evangelized, and having a fully established church are two different things. Also, I am going off of what Polycarp had written about the evangelizing of Asia.

Just how long do you think it took to establish a functioning church in Smyrna? Titus was given the task by Paul to go out and ordain elders in every church in Crete. Also, in Acts 14, Barnabas and Paul both preached the gospel in multiple cities, and at the same time ordained elders in every church. On the day of Pentecost when the early church was just getting established, people were being added to the church daily at the same time they were being saved. It's not as if they had to build a cathedral before they could be considered an assembly. These were all meeting in people's houses, eating bread from house to house with each other.

As Paul was evangelizing the cities of Asia, churches were being established simultaneously, with elders set up in each of them - faithful ones who were able to teach others also. Smyrna was no exception. This church was established by Paul's evangelistic efforts, at the time when all those who dwelt in Asia were hearing the gospel in Acts 19:10 during that space of two years.

Except that tradition is on my side. You are against all tradition in putting Antipas death before 62 AD, especially since the origina tradition, going back to people who knew, is that it was 92 AD, and John exiled in 94 AD, and released by the Senate in 96-97AD.

If you are basing your arguments on tradition for its own sake alone, this is a lame leg to lean upon. Tradition was the battleground of the Reformation. A new reformation for eschatology also needs to take place, because tradition has clouded the truth of scripture's internal witness. Christ Himself fought against Jewish traditions in His day - "Ye have heard that it hath been said...but I say unto you..."

This post is dedicated to scripture's own internal witness for dating Revelation - not tradition, which has so often proved to be mistaken.

What are you talking about Jerusalem's lake of fire? And no, the only two thrown into the lake of fire burning with brimstone was the land beast and the prophet that caused people to worship the image of this beast. The only two. (Revelation is actually specific in that it says only these two.) This is the only time that it is mentioned as the lake of fire burning with brimstone. The one Satan is thrown in is just the lake of fire.

The Lake of Fire in the city of Jerusalem for the city's second death is another subject entirely. As is the total of three beasts of Revelation. And the scripture's support of a bodily resurrection in AD 70 as well as a resurrection in our future, which I have posted on elsewhere

 

[TMSO]

Irenaeus was confused about a lot of things. He mistook the Sea Beast for the Antichrist when that Antichrist title never appears in the book of Revelation at all. He got Christ's age at His crucifixion wrong by saying He was almost 50. He didn't even know which John wrote Revelation. And he got the meaning of the 666 number wrong. The same kind of flawed reasoning could be applied to Solomon, since he had 666 talents of gold coming to him every year from other nations in 2 Chron. 9:13. That doesn't make Solomon the Sea Beast character.

You are talking about the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John. He wasn't mistaken. I take it you never read what Irenaeus said about Noah at 600 years, and speaking of the times within which Noah lived, then the 60 cubits and 6 cubits for Nebuchednezzar. I don't know if he was right or not, but he is putting together an amalgamation of evil times, and linked to Nebuchednezzar.

The Greek word for the instruction to "calculate" the number of the Sea Beast is "psephisato", which carries the meaning of using pebbles to add up a total number of something. There is nothing in Revelation telling us to consider those three disparate items in scripture as having anything to do with each other. That was simply random speculation on Irenaeus's part and yours also if you follow him.

Just how long do you think it took to establish a functioning church in Smyrna? Titus was given the task by Paul to go out and ordain elders in every church in Crete. Also, in Acts 14, Barnabas and Paul both preached the gospel in multiple cities, and at the same time ordained elders in every church. On the day of Pentecost when the early church was just getting established, people were being added to the church daily at the same time they were being saved. It's not as if they had to build a cathedral before they could be considered an assembly. These were all meeting in people's houses, eating bread from house to house with each other.

I guess I could use conjecture as you do, but I don't like conjecture.

As Paul was evangelizing the cities of Asia, churches were being established simultaneously, with elders set up in each of them - faithful ones who were able to teach others also. Smyrna was no exception. This church was established by Paul's evangelistic efforts, at the time when all those who dwelt in Asia were hearing the gospel in Acts 19:10 during that space of two years.

If you are basing your arguments on tradition for its own sake alone, this is a lame leg to lean upon. Tradition was the battleground of the Reformation. A new reformation for eschatology also needs to take place, because tradition has clouded the truth of scripture's internal witness. Christ Himself fought against Jewish traditions in His day - "Ye have heard that it hath been said...but I say unto you..."

At least I am not adding to Revelation all kinds of stuff that isn't in there.

This post is dedicated to scripture's own internal witness for dating Revelation - not tradition, which has so often proved to be mistaken.

Yes, so why all the eisegesis?

The Lake of Fire in the city of Jerusalem for the city's second death is another subject entirely. As is the total of three beasts of Revelation. And the scripture's support of a bodily resurrection in AD 70 as well as a resurrection in our future, which I have posted on elsewhere

What scriptural support of a bodily resurrection in AD 70? What scriptural support for Jesus never returning bodily?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are talking about the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John. He wasn't mistaken. I take it you never read what Irenaeus said about Noah at 600 years, and speaking of the times within which Noah lived, then the 60 cubits and 6 cubits for Nebuchednezzar. I don't know if he was right or not, but he is putting together an amalgamation of evil times, and linked to Nebuchednezzar.

Irenaeus being a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be the disciple of John does not make Irenaeus inspired in his writing. It doesn't even make him correct. Error can arise from anyone who was not taught directly by Christ. Even Paul had to write to the Galatians with astonishment that "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel..." (Galatians 1:6). Irenaeus was wrong in his speculations.

I guess I could use conjecture as you do, but I don't like conjecture.

The history of the churches in Asia is there in the NT, in Acts, and Paul's comments about them in the epistles. When I quote material about the Asian churches, it is not "conjecture".

At least I am not adding to Revelation all kinds of stuff that isn't in there.

I add nothing to what is there already.

What scriptural support of a bodily resurrection in AD 70? What scriptural support for Jesus never returning bodily?

This post topic is not the place for that discussion. And I never said Jesus was not returning bodily. That bodily return is a given. You are mixing me up with someone else.

 

[TMSO]

Irenaeus being a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be the disciple of John does not make Irenaeus inspired in his writing. It doesn't even make him correct. Error can arise from anyone who was not taught directly by Christ. Even Paul had to write to the Galatians with astonishment that "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel..." (Galatians 1:6). Irenaeus was wrong in his speculations.

It means that Polycarp would have told Irenaeus what John told him. (I though such logic was easy to attain and hold.) There is a reason why Polycarp, Ignatious, Paias and Irenaeus were premillennialists. Who is the one they all hold in common? John. Polycarp and Ignatious were both John's disciples. Papias and Irenaeus were disciples of Polycarp.

The history of the churches in Asia is there in the NT, in Acts, and Paul's comments about them in the epistles. When I quote material about the Asian churches, it is not "conjecture".

Except it isn't dated. That is conjecture.

I add nothing to what is there already.

You add a lot. 666 is the calculation of the name of the beast, which is to be made using the Hebrew alphabet. Nebechadnezzar reigned about 100 years to late for your timeline. 562 BC. Even the start of his reign means that he would be BEFORE 70 AD, not at 70AD as required. Throw in the fact that you believe Daniel's 70 weeks (of which this beast is a part) ended in 40 AD, and you definitely don't have 666.

This post topic is not the place for that discussion. And I never said Jesus was not returning bodily. That bodily return is a given. You are mixing me up with someone else.

That bodily return happens at the end of the tribulation you say ended almost two millennia ago. Yet, we don't have it. Jesus was clear. Immediately after the tribulation, the sign of the Son of Man will appear and the Son of Man will come in the clouds (second coming, you know) and everyone will see Him. So, if the bodily return of Christ is stated by Jesus Himself, in connection to those things that will come to pass before the generation passes away, and He hasn't physically returned yet, then someone has misinterpreted the passages.

 

[3 Resurrections]

666 is the calculation of the name of the beast, which is to be made using the Hebrew alphabet. Nebechadnezzar reigned about 100 years to late for your timeline. 562 BC. Even the start of his reign means that he would be BEFORE 70 AD, not at 70AD as required. Throw in the fact that you believe Daniel's 70 weeks (of which this beast is a part) ended in 40 AD, and you definitely don't have 666.

You are assuming that the Hebrew alphabet is needed to calculate this 666 number. Scripture never says that. And Nebuchadnezzar's beginning of his reign is not the important point on the timeline for the beginning of the Sea Beast's existence. It was the point at which that continuous series of pagan empires (starting with the Babylonian "lion" empire) first started putting Jerusalem and the Jews under subjugation. This began with Nebuchadnezzar's first deportation of the Jews from Jerusalem in 607 BC. Numbering six hundred and sixty-six years later when John was writing Revelation, the believers were to count backward in time that many years and they would have the identity and the name of the man who began that Sea Beast's existence.

The AD 70 year is not required to be a part of figuring out the Sea Beast's identity. Neither is the 70 weeks prophecy a critical feature which defines the number of the Sea Beast. And I never said the 70 weeks prophecy ended in AD 40. It ended in AD 37. A subject for a different post.

That bodily return happens at the end of the tribulation you say ended almost two millennia ago. Yet, we don't have it. Jesus was clear. Immediately after the tribulation, the sign of the Son of Man will appear and the Son of Man will come in the clouds (second coming, you know) and everyone will see Him. So, if the bodily return of Christ is stated by Jesus Himself, in connection to those things that will come to pass before the generation passes away, and He hasn't physically returned yet, then someone has misinterpreted the passages.

Jesus was clear that He would return before some of the disciples He spoke to in that generation had died. This is pretty clear concerning His first-century return in that generation. Not everyone in the world saw this, because it was a local event happening at Jerusalem's Mount of Olives. Every eye specifically of those who pierced Him saw His return - at Jerusalem. Also a subject for a different post.

 

[TMSO]

You are assuming that the Hebrew alphabet is needed to calculate this 666 number. Scripture never says that. And Nebuchadnezzar's beginning of his reign is not the important point on the timeline for the beginning of the Sea Beast's existence. It was the point at which that continuous series of pagan empires (starting with the Babylonian "lion" empire) first started putting Jerusalem and the Jews under subjugation. This began with Nebuchadnezzar's first deportation of the Jews from Jerusalem in 607 BC. Numbering six hundred and sixty-six years later when John was writing Revelation, the believers were to count backward in time that many years and they would have the identity and the name of the man who began that Sea Beast's existence.

It is needed. The reason John doesn't tell us who the person is, because they weren't alive yet. However, once he comes on the scene, here is how you can recognize him. You don't understand that what you are saying it is, in no way gives any recognition at all to who the person will be. (And it is a person.) And again, even you stated, that this is all an amalgamation of the four beasts, which means the person came AFTER all of these, not before. Consider the statue that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about. Five parts. Gold, Silver, bronze, iron, clay and iron. Four parts and a fifth. and the fifth is an amalgamation of iron and clay. The iron is Rome. Perhaps, coincidentally, ten horns... ten toes. And again, a link to Nebuchadnezzar's statue, trying to change the dream he had from God by making the whole statue of gold.

The AD 70 year is not required to be a part of figuring out the Sea Beast's identity. Neither is the 70 weeks prophecy a critical feature which defines the number of the Sea Beast. And I never said the 70 weeks prophecy ended in AD 40. It ended in AD 37. A subject for a different post.

If the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week at 33AD, then the end of the 70th week MUST BE 40 AD, and cannot be 37 AD. God was very clear to Daniel.

Jesus was clear that He would return before some of the disciples He spoke to in that generation had died. This is pretty clear concerning His first-century return in that generation. Not everyone in the world saw this, because it was a local event happening at Jerusalem's Mount of Olives. Every eye specifically of those who pierced Him saw His return - at Jerusalem. Also a subject for a different post.

Except Jesus doesn't say anything about those who pierced him here. That is solely in Zechariah's prophecy. And we know that deals with Jesus because John shows that Jesus being pierced by the Romans makes Jesus the one who was pierced in the prophecy in Zechariah. BTW, please tell us when Jesus 3rd coming will be.